Dear RawMustard

It appears that you are somewhat influenced by the tabloid press.

Within climate science, there is not yet certainty in specific areas. Ethical scientists publish their predictions, given the available evidence at time, however they also publish their corrections.

Clearly you have not bothered checking the credentials of the author of the media article – one Christopher Booker, a skeptic and a thoroughly disreputable journalist who is known for misquoting scientists. Nevertheless, Booker's article could increase the sales of Morner's 20 page book - "The Greatest Lie ever told." You can buy it for about 15 bucks too - cheap as!

Nigel Weiss is considered a most eminent astrophysicist and to the best of my knowledge (and luckily for Booker), Weiss has not proceeded with a class action:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

“How can we get through the thick headed masses we're being conned?”

Indeed RawMustard. I too wonder about that!

Pericles, I don't think you're a denialist. Rather, from what you've said at OLO about climate change I consider you to be a sceptic - in the true sense of the word.

So am I. I regard the more outlandish claims made by AGW zealots as being not only fanciful, but also damaging because they invite derision. However, probably because I have a professional background in science, I tend to give more credence to the vast weight of scientific evidence that supports global warming than you apparently do.

I take your point about the UK 'Telegraph', but it seems to me that it, like many once-venerable newspapers, has become increasingly tabloid of late - in the ways that you describe. Once upon a time one could rely on 'The Australian' too.

One thing I've noticed in discourse about climate change is an emerging trope that the denialist camp deploys, whereby some aged (venerable?) expert - usually retired - is trotted out because they've made some kind of pronouncement that can be championed by the Pollyanna mob.

If you'd read the links I provided, you'd have noticed that Mörner's views have been disowned by the organisation of which he was once president (and from which he derives credibility in the Tele article) - not to mention his curious views on dowsing. I'm not 'playing the man' - Christopher Booker did, and in this case the logical fallacy of appeal to authority is just that.

The other link provided scientific background as to why Mörner is very unlikely to be correct. I invite you to read it from a truly sceptical perspective, and then perhaps you might see where I'm coming from on this.

I don't think mine was an "I-can't-hear-you-I-can't-hear-you" response to the boofheaded original "thick headed masses" post. Rather, it was more of a "I-couldn't-be-bothered-taking-another-ignorant-offensive-denialist-seriously-so-I'll-point-intelligent-readers-in-the-direction-of-real-information" kind of thing.

Cheers.

Fester, I couldn't agree more.

>>It isn't black and white, Pericles<<

But I suggest that is rather more supportive of my case, which is that it is counterproductive to dismiss contrary thinking on the basis that "Morner is yet another denialist crank who should enjoy his retirement instead of dribbling on about supposedly falling sea levels and dowsing".

I'm still not sure where dowsing fits into the picture, by the way.

>>Had you subjected Morner's claims to a little scepticism, you may not have been so inclined to side with him.<<

Simply protesting against the manner in which his ideas were trashed, does not indicate that I "side with him". Merely that I am interested to hear evidence from both sides, free of personal slagging.

My crime here would appear to be that I prefer to keep an open mind, rather than sing from the doomsayers' songsheet. I do in fact strongly believe that the developed world needs to change its profligate ways with carbon-based energy, but object equally strongly to being told what I must think, merely to be accepted by the herd.

Just put it down to unquenched curiosity, and a dislike of labelling.

There is a lot of misinformation flying around to sow the seeds of doubt into the minds of people who just don’t know.

As to Christopher Booker, he is a columnist with much the same bent as Andrew Bolt.

Insofar as Dr Morner, judge for yourself this:

http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf

Sea level info:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

The IPCC make projections based on robust science and IMO, less robust econometric modeling input into the somewhat dated Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES).

Aside: Whereas climate-change ‘hindcasts’ have been quite accurate, I have yet to see an economic model correctly ‘hindcast’ the Great Depression. Ergo, it is wrong to compare 'climate-change' modeling to economic modeling.

Depending on what scenario is used, you can get projected sea level rises between 30 cm and 20 m by 2100. The most recent and realistic projection is between 80 cm and 1.2 m ... that in itself is catastrophic enough, IMO.

Sea level rise is pervasive, slowly creeping up around our ankles till one day we are stuck in the sand. Adapting to climate change will take decades, and it will cost, RawMustard.

If (and it is a big if) ‘runaway climate change’ is reached by surpassing the ‘tipping points’ then yes, life as we know it would not be worth living – but we would have a 1000 yrs or so to adapt, and we wouldn’t.

Protagorus, I don’t think it wise Weiss is discussed here.

CJ, a sceptic (in the scientific sense) tests the hypothesis, conducts the experiments, does the research and publishes the results.

Pericles, at the risk of being branded an alarmist, I would prefer to see a rebuttal of the preponderance of evidence the vast majority of ‘climate scientists’ present, rather than a simplistic "I-can't-hear-you-I-can't-hear-you" attitude, complete with hands over ears :-)

I watch reports, with pictures, of the retreat of the glaciers world-wide, the shrinkage of the ice at both ends of the planet, the vast ice-bergs fracturing off Antartica, the opening of the North-West Passage, and I have no doubt we'll see the oceans rise.
I'll pass no comment on the denier, other than to say, who can ignore all this geological sized evidence?
The only datum I'll offer is this, the one thing that they all seem to agree on is that it is all happening faster than any of their predictions, even the ones that were scoffed at as extreme.
Get your flippers on, kids!

As usual, Q&A is on the money. However, I think that his definition of a sceptic is a bit narrow, which raises the interesting question as to what actually constitutes scepticism when applied to contentious issues such as climate change.

I quite like this definition gleaned from 'Skepticblog' [ http://skepticblog.org/2008/11/17/skeptic-the-name-thing-again/ ]:

<< A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion. >>

I like it because it incorporates both scientific and logical criteria in a way that describes the approach to which I personally aspire. Also, although I no longer conduct research personally, the above definition allows for the evaluation of other people's findings based on scientific and logical criteria.